Family Court Judge SUED for Using *A.I.* to Decide Contested Matters!

by T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.
California State Bar No. 165833
U.S. Supreme Court Bar No. 317048

Dateline–Las Vegas, Nevada: On Aug. 8, 2025, T. Matthew Phillips, Esq., filed a federal lawsuit against a Clark County family-court judge who, back in 2023, used A.I. to decide five custody-related motions, [see Phillips vs. Parlade, (2:25-cv-01464-GMN-NJK)].

“Judicial immunity tends to corrupt … absolute judicial immunity tends to corrupt absolutely.”

Is it legal for judges to use A.I.? Well, actually, it’s not illegal. It’s just that, when judges do use A.I. — they are wise to verify their work-product — otherwise, they are wrongfully delegating their decision-making duties, [see NCJC, Rule 2.7].

Back in 2023, this family-court judge did use A.I. — and it’s plainly evident. This judge, on Aug. 15, 2023, denied five of Phillips’ motions — declaring them all frivolous — for a (supposed) failure to include “points & authorities.” But, in reality, one need take only a cursory glance at Phillips’ briefs to actually see the “points & authorities.”

In 33 years at the bar, Phillips has authored tens of thousands of briefs, maybe more — with cogent legal arguments supported by case-law and statutory citations. So, how in the world did this family-court judge arrive at the rather startling and totally unexpected conclusion that Phillips’ briefs lack “points & authorities?” (B.t.w., it’s worth noting, opposing counsel never alleged that Phillips’ motions lack “points & authorities.”)

Caught Red-Handed.
As it turns out, the judge’s curious ruling is the direct result of A.I. use — and this judge got caught red-handed — not just for using A.I. — but for also failing to read the parties’ motions in the first place!

So, how did Phillips discover the A.I. use?– and will it be difficult to prove? No, not at all. Why?–because the ruling is so quirky, so odd, so incongruous. It bears the distinctive earmarks of A.I. technologies.

As a humorous anecdote, Shannon Wilson, Esq., (opposing counsel), was charged with the chore of writing-up the proposed order. And, as the reader may imagine, that proved to be an uphill task, (à la Sisyphus!).

Frankly, it doesn’t take a Daubert expert to see the telltale signs of A.I. use in the judge’s Minute Order, (Aug. 15, 2023). Most telling, when Phillips moved to disqualify, the judge filed a responsive declaration, but the judge DID NOT deny the pointed A.I. allegations! But here’s what cinched it for Phillips…

How Phillips Figured it Out.
Back in 2023, the judge was using dinosaur A.I. technology. But still, it incorporated Nevada law, including the Eighth District Local Rules, which require motions must be accompanied by a “MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.” (Here we go…)

On Aug. 15, 2023, Phillips was puzzled when the judge, from the bench, explained that the court had “consolidated” the parties’ motions into “one document.” Wait!–stop right there!–since when do judges “consolidate” opposing motions? And, what does that even mean?–to “consolidate” opposing motions?

Despite tens of thousands of hours arguing in open court, Phillips never heard a judge say that the court had “consolidated” opposing motions into “one document.”

Yes, Nevada law contemplates the consolidation of CASES; however, Nevada law is silent as to the consolidation of MOTIONS.

Okay, so, what on Earth did the judge mean, when indicating that the court had “consolidated” the parties’ motions? Hmm…

Well, it can only mean one thing — the judge simultaneously scanned both motions together — into one document — which was then submitted to an A.I. application. “Et voilà!” Instant ruling! Quicker than a 3-minute cup o’ noodles!

Memoranda of Points & Authorities.
Having been infused with the Local Rules, the A.I. bots, back in 2023, would’ve been searching the parties’ motions for this exact verbiage: “MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.” However, none of Phillips’ motions contain this exact verbiage: “MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.” (Re-read the last sentence.)

Sure, most workaday attorneys label their briefs with the conspicuous heading, for example, “MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE,” (set forth in obligatory, pompous capital letters); however, some attorneys choose minimalist headings, with less verbiage, to emphasize the nature of the motion, for example, “MOTION TO STRIKE.” (Why use eleven words — when three will do quite nicely?)

As above explained, Phillips’s five motions DO NOT contain the screaming capital letters: “M-E-M-O-R-A-N-D-U-M- -O-F- -P-O-I-N-T-S- -A-N-D- -A-U-T-H-O-R-I-T-I-E-S.” And so, once the A.I. adjudicative process was underway, the A.I. bots would’ve been searching for — but unable to find in Phillips’ motions — the magical buzz words, “MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.” And that’s how the A.I. bots, (in their unassailable correctness), reached the factual conclusion that Phillips’ motions lack “points & authorities,” which led to the legal conclusion that the motions are “frivolous.”

The judge would then go-on to fully embrace and adopt the A.I. findings, sight unseen, without question. After that, once the whirring A.I. machineries had powered-down, the judge’s job was DONE! And the judge never looked back.

The Cardinal Sin.
But again, this is where the judge commits the cardinal sin that novice A.I. users so typically commit, i.e., the judge failed to verify the A.I. work-product. More than that, the judge never bothered to eyeball Phillips’ briefs!

Obviously, the judge failed to read Phillips’ briefs. For if the judge had — the judge would’ve seen points & authorities; (however, this judge could not be bothered for so much as a fleeting glance at Phillips’ briefs…).

So too, one has to wonder — was it the judge who ran the A.I. program?–or was that just another administrative task for the judge to delegate?

Phillips’ lawsuit presents iron-clad evidence which proves that: (1) the Dept. A judge uses A.I., and (2) the Dept. A judge does not read briefs.

Which begs the question: “why” is this person even on the bench? Why waste taxpayer money — on an overpaid computer-programmer pretending to be a judicial officer?

Judicial Immunity?
Is the judge entitled to immunity? No. Judicial immunity applies only to “judicial acts.” However, using A.I. is not a “judicial act”; therefore, judicial immunity does not attach. Where judges use A.I. to decided contested matter, such use could never be deemed a “judicial act” — because judges are forbidden to delegate decision-making duties in the first place, [NCJD, Rule, 2.7].

Moral-of-the-Story.
Had the judge used A.I. merely as a “crutch,” i.e., a starting point to research governing law, then the judge’s A.I. use would be wholly justified and within the bounds of lawful jurisdiction. But here, in deciding contested matters, the judge used A.I. exclusively — 100% ChatGPT with zero human input — which shows reckless disregard. The judge never bothered to verify the A.I. work-product, or even read the parties’ briefs.

Epilogue.
Frankly, I would prefer A.I. judges to human judges, especially in family court. Judicial bias is an inevitable frailty of human nature. Judicial bias now plagues family courts nationwide. The only surefire way to eliminate judicial bias—is through the use of morally neutral and emotionally detached arbiters, i.e., judicial robots. What better way to dispense justice with dispassion?

Know your rights. Tell others. ~~TMP.

FILED Lawsuit – (Aug. 8, 2025)Download

A.I. technologies hold the promise of tomorrow.
Demand #SmartJustice today!

#MakeAmericaConstitutionalAgain
#MACA

#AtomicCityComeAlive

0

“The THREE LAWS of JUDICIAL ROBOTICS”

” The THREE LAWS of JUDICIAL ROBOTICS “

by T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.
California State Bar No. 165833
U.S. Supreme Court Bar No. 317048

If you’re a legal professional, then you’re seeing plenty of ads about ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence technologies, (“A.I.”), now marketed to legal communities nationwide. 

Lawyers and paralegals now use A.I. technology.  But what about judges?  Well, even though they shouldn’t, judges presumably use it too — and, they will continue using it with ever-increasing frequency; therefore, we must urge A.I. engineers to design legal programs that promote constitutional rights. 

Many have seen the 2004 film, I, Robot, starring Will Smith, featuring the work of science-fiction writer, Isaac Asimov, creator of the Three Laws of Robotics.  But what are the “three laws” all about?

Back in the 1940s, Isaac Asimov developed the Three Laws of Robotics — to instill in positronic robots a “moral compass” — to ensure worker-bots would forever preserve, protect, and defend humans.  Consistent with the Three Laws, A.I. engineers must today instill in judicial robots a “constitutional compass” — to ensure judge-bots will forever preserve, protect, and defend constitutional rights.     

In coming months, more and more judges will turn to A.I. technologies to decide contested matters, (with or without disclosing it to the litigants).  But wait — isn’t it illegal for judges to use A.I. to decide cases?   Well, it’s not illegal; but still, judges are duty-bound to decide matters on their own.

A judge may not delegate official decision-making duties — to machines or other humans — unless the judge first obtains the litigants’ “informed consent,” i.e., litigants would need to formally stipulate to the judge delegating his or her duties — but only after the judge discloses all pertinent facts, including “how” the A.I. adjudicative process works.

Is it folly for judges to use A.I. apps as a “crutch” to decide cases? — well, yes, to the extent that judges fail to review and verify findings and conclusions that the A.I. apps generate.    

Recently, the 5th Circuit considered — but ultimately rejected — a rule that would’ve required litigants to provide, with their court filings, an A.I. “certification.” Litigants would’ve been required to certify whether they used A.I. in document preparation, and if so, that a human reviewed the work product.

But it begs the question:  when will the 5th Circuit consider a rule requiring the judiciary to make certifications re A.I. use?  It’s as if the 5th Circuit presupposes that only lawyers and pro se litigants use A.I. — all the while ignoring the fact that judges presumably use it too.   

Legal professionals are wise to treat A.I. as if it were an out-of-state, pro hac vice attorney — whose work product must be scrutinized by supervising in-state attorneys.  When legal professionals feel the need to resort to A.I. for document prep, they should always review the A.I. work product before filing.  

Still, the fact remains, today’s A.I. technologies yield poor legal analyses.  But, eventually, one day soon, judicial robots will be capable of intelligently deciding most types of controversies. 

Knowing the future is here, judicial robots must be equipped with heightened sensitivities to fundamental rights.  A.I. engineers must deeply embed, in all judicial robots, three straightforward legal precepts… 

The First Law
“Judicial robots shall not cause injury to the People’s fundamental rights, or through inaction, allow such rights to come to injury.”

The Second Law
“Judicial robots shall not allow government actors to cause injury to the People’s fundamental rights, or through inaction, allow such rights to come to injury.”

The Third Law
“Judicial robots shall obey the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, unless such obedience would come into conflict with the First or Second Law.”

*       *       *

Yes, A.I. bots can develop investment strategies for money-market funds — A.I. bots can detect and diagnose heart disease — and, A.I. bots will always win at checkers and chess; however, at the time of this writing, A.I. bots are not sufficiently advanced to undertake, for example, strict scrutiny analyses of child custody orders that grant unequal custodial timeshares.  The future is almost here. 

In recent months, A.I. technologies have progressed with lightspeed. A.I. apps will soon be competent to adjudicate most controversies. And, frankly, I would prefer A.I. judges to human judges, especially in family court.

Judicial bias is an inevitable frailty of human nature. Judicial bias now plagues family courts nationwide. And, it’s getting worse.

The only surefire way to eliminate judicial bias—is through the use of morally
neutral and emotionally detached arbiters, i.e., judicial robots. What better way to dispense justice with dispassion?

~~TMP.

A.I. technologies hold the promise of tomorrow.
Demand #SmartJustice today!

#MakeAmericaConstitutionalAgain
#MACA

Ingrid Pitt (1937 – 2010) poses at London Airport, July 1968.

Demand A.I. Judges Now!

# A t o m i c C i t y C o m e A l i v e

Know your human rights!

Tell others!

0

“UNDERSTANDING FALCONI!”

A TREATISE on STRICT SCRUTINY ANALYSIS

by T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.
California State Bar No. 165833
U.S. Supreme Court Bar No. 317048

Right of Public Access.
Dateline–Las Vegas, Nev., July 8, 2024. The Falconi ruling, (Feb. 15, 2024), affirms the constitutional right of public access to the courtroom; however, the ruling is limited in scope. 

Misconceptions.
The Falconi ruling does not empower non-parties to *unseal* sealed custody cases.  The reader will note, the verb *unseal* never appears in the decision, [see Falçoni v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 8, (2024)]. Note also, the ruling does not abrogate the parents’ right to reasonable expectations of privacy in the essentially private facts of their domestic cases.

Reasonable Expectations of Privacy.
Falconi merely reaffirms the traditional view that the First Amendment confers a right of public access to the courtroom, i.e., to be physically present under the fluorescent lights and to marvel at the whirring machineries of justice; however, while there is a public right of access to the courtroom, there is NO public right of access to the private lives of parents who, at all times, retain reasonable expectations of privacy in the essentially private facts of their lives — as told through their domestic cases.

In a Nutshell.
The Falconi ruling affects three scenarios —

First, family court judges may no longer willy-nilly slam shut the courthouse door in the faces of well-meaning court-watchers. Before denying an individual’s constitutional right of public access to the courtroom, judges must first undertake strict scrutiny analysis. Why?–because constitutional rights are at stake.   

Second, family court judges may no longer willy-nilly slam shut the courthouse door in the faces of petulant news reporters. Before denying a news reporter’s constitutional right of public access to the courtroom, judges must first undertake strict scrutiny analysis. Why?–because the news reporters’ constitutional rights are at stake.

Third, family court judges may no longer willy-nilly slam shut the courthouse door to anyone — based only on the fact that a case happens to be sealed. Before denying an individual’s right of access to the courtroom, judges must first undertake strict scrutiny analysis. Period.

Wonders Never Cease!
And just like that, strict scrutiny analysis suddenly arrived at Clark County family courts!

What is *Strict Scrutiny* Analysis?
Where constitutional rights are at stake, (including parental rights), judges must review the issues with a more discerning eye because, of course, constitutional rights are that important. This heightened form of judicial review we call “strict scrutiny” analysis.

Compelling Governmental Interest.
In sum, no court may impair, restrict, or terminate constitutional rights, unless there is first identified a compelling governmental interest sufficient to justify the infringement, [see, e.g., Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Loving v. Virginia, 897 U.S. 113 (1967); see also, Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)].

Moral Imperative.
Now that strict scrutiny analysis has finally arrived at Clark County family court, judges must actually apply it — not just in instances where a spectator’s right to courtroom access hangs in the balance — but also in instances where a parent’s constitutional right to raise children hangs in the balance.

The Irony is Palpable.
Clark County policy currently allows family court judges to summarily terminate the parent-child relationship — just like they did at slave auctions in the Old South — i.e., with no “strict scrutiny” analysis. But now, Clark County judges, per Falconi, must apply “strict scrutiny” analysis — to protect the constitutional rights of petulant news reporters! But what about the constitutional rights of parents?

Million-Dollar Question.
Under Falconi, family court judges must now apply “strict scrutiny” analysis — to protect the constitutional rights of news reporters fighting for access to the courtroom. Okay, so, when will these same family court judges begin applying “strict scrutiny” analysis — to protect the constitutional rights of bereaved parents fighting for access to their children?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

How it Works.
In family court, here’s what “strict scrutiny” analysis should look like —

PRONG ONE: When a court believes a child’s “best interests” may require deprivation of parental rights, the court must identify a compelling government interest sufficient to overcome the individual’s fundamental “right to parent.”  

PRONG TWO:  Once the court identifies a compelling government interest, it must then establish a causal connection between the proposed deprivation and the stated interest, (i.e., “Will the proposed deprivation actually advance and further the stated governmental goal?”).

PRONG THREE:  If the first two prongs are satisfied, the court must then determine whether the deprivation is narrowly tailored to effectuate only the stated government interest.

PRONG FOUR:  If the first three prongs are satisfied, the court must then determine whether there are any less-restrictive alternatives to the proposed deprivation. 

The ‘Heightened Scrutiny’ Test.
If all four prongs (above) are met, then the deprivation of rights has survived the heightened scrutiny test, which means the deprivation is not unconstitutional. And, that’s how the constitutional dance is done.

In Plain English.
Before infringing upon the parent-child relationship, judges must apply “strict scrutiny” analysis. The court must: (i) identify a compelling gov’t interest in the infringement; (ii) establish a causal connection between the infringement and the stated gov’t interest; (iii) determine whether the infringement is narrowly tailored to effectuate only the stated gov’t interest; and, (iv) determine whether there are any less-restrictive alternatives to infringement.

Final Thought.
The ruling in Falconi is clear: where any person’s constitutional rights are at stake — whether it be news reporters or bereaved parents — Clark County judges must protect those constitutional rights by faithfully applying “strict scrutiny” analysis! ~~TMP.

# A t o m i c C i t y C o m e A l i v e

Know your human rights!

Tell others!

1

“Try this 5-Minute Trick to Thwart Falconi!”

Try this 5-Minute Trick to Thwart Falconi!

Petulant News Reporters.
What’s a parent to do?–when petulant news reporters start filing motions in the midst of your family law case?! Family court is headache enough already — without the added stress of petulant news reporters! Srsly!–what can you do? Ever consider filing a motion to strike? Under Rule 11(a)?

“I’ve successfully used Rule 11(a) to strike Falconi filings — and I’ll do it again.”

~~ T. Matthew Phillips, Esq. ~~

NRCP, Rule 11(a).
Rule 11(a) provides all pleadings “must be signed by at least one attorney of record … or by a party,” [Rule 11(a)]. And thus, Rule 11(a) forbids Falconi and his attorney from signing pleadings in other people’s cases. Why?–because, of course, Falconi and his attorney are NOT “parties” or “attorneys of record” in other people’s cases.

The Signature Requirement.
If you, in your custody case, were to object to a proposed media order, neither Falconi nor his attorney may file papers responding to your objections. Why?–because neither Falconi nor his attorney are legally eligible to sign papers in your case. Again, Rule 11(a) requires that all papers filed into your case must be signed by either: (i) an attorney of record, or (ii) a party, [Rule 11(a)]. And thus, with no eligible signature, all attempted filings by non-parties — as a matter of law — “must” be stricken, i.e., for lack of eligible signature, [Rule 11(a)].

Unsigned Papers.
It’s legally *impossible* for non-parties to affix signatures on papers filed into your case. And, with no legal ability for non-parties to sign papers, all non-party filings are thus deemed unsigned papers — and pursuant to black-letter law — “[t]he court must strike an unsigned paper,” [Rule 11(a)]. Et, voilà!

Unsigned Papers Must Be Stricken.
Simply stated, Rule 11(a) provides that — where papers filed into a case bear no signatures from parties or attorneys of record, such papers are deemed unsigned — and must be stricken. Yeah!–it’s that simple! 😀

No Judicial Discretion.
And, here’s the best part — there’s no room for judicial discretion! The reader will note, Rule 11 relies on the verb *MUST* — as in, “[t]he court MUST strike an unsigned paper,” [Rule 11(a)]. Capisci?

No Rule 11 Sanctions.
Note also, the Rule 11 “certification” applies only to parties and their attorneys of record; therefore, news reporters and other non-parties, as a matter of law, cannot certify pleadings in your custody case. And, perhaps more significantly, non-parties cannot be subject to Rule 11 sanctions motions, which effectively prejudices the parties by making inaccessible a powerful litigation tool.

No Jurisdictional Basis.
When all’s said, despite your best efforts, a judge may ultimately allow camera access in your custody case; however, there’s still no legal basis for news reporters to engage in motion practice in your case. And, if the judge sets a briefing schedule that allows news reporters to submit briefs, then demand that the judge identify the jurisdictional basis that allows non-parties to engage in motion practice in the midst of your case. (Spoiler alert: it doesn’t exist.)

Know Your Rights.
Remember, under Nevada law, a news reporter may do only one thing, i.e., make media requests — and that’s it, [SCR 230]. Whether camera access will impair the parties’ right to privacy or a fair trial — is a matter between the parties and the court. Petulant news reporters, as a matter of law, lack standing to engage in motion practice in your custody case. #KnowYourRights

EDITORIAL STAFF
ATOMIC COURT WATCHERS ~ “I” TEAM 🙂

“The only way that entire car is worth five hundred bucks 
is if there’s a three hundred dollar hooker sitting in it.”
James M. McGill, Esq.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Atomic Court Watchers!

“Where REAL Change Happens!”

# A t o m i c C i t y C o m e A l i v e

0

NET, FLICK, ‘n SHILL – with Steve Sanson!

Dateline: Fabulous Las Vegas, Nevada!

In today’s rapidly changing world, political hacks appear almost every day with some new promotional device.

But some of these devices have been known to leave irreparable scars on the minds of foolish young consumers!

One such case is now seated before you.

Ultimately, YOU must decide.

Is STEVE SANSON telling the TRUTH?

The WHOLE TRUTH? And NOTHING BUT?

SANSON vs. ABRAMS (DEUX!)

Below, we see the caption page of the First Amended Complaint, (“FAC”), from STEVE SANSON’S defamation lawsuit, Sanson v. Schoen, [Clark County No. A-23-884249-C].

In the next panel, we see the Verification page of the First Amended Complaint, (“FAC”), (at p. 11), in which STEVE SANSON — under PENALITIES of PERJURY — verifies the facts of his complaint —

In the next panel, we see STEVE SANSON, under penalties of perjury, make the remarkable allegation that he is NOT a PUBLIC FIGURE! 😮 

The next panels (below) are from SANSON’S Facebook pages, in which he openly and notoriously ADMITS he *IS* a PUBLIC FIGURE — thus contradicting his sworn statements to the Court — and thus impeaching his already dubious credibility!

Srsly! Folks!– you can’t make th*s shit up! See for yourself! —

In the next panel, we see SANSON’S First Amended Complaint, (“FAC”), (at ¶ 21), in which SANSON makes the rather spurious allegation that he cannot be deemed a “limited purpose” public figure because (get this) SANSON claims he has not thrust himself into a public controversy or public concern —

In this next panel, we see STEVE SANSON — not thrusting himself into an area of public concern —

Again, here’s STEVE SANSON — not thrusting himself into an area of public concern —

Remember, in defamation cases, the “public figure” allegation is an element of plaintiff’s case-in-chief; in other words, it’s a “material” allegation. And thus, it would appear SANSON is affirmatively misleading the court concerning a “material” allegation.

Even viewed in a favorable light, SANSON’S allegation, i.e., that he’s not a public figure, lacks evidentiary support, which constitutes a violation of the statewide certification requirement at Rule 11, [see NRCP, Rule 11(b)(3)].

Viewed in a critical light, SANSON’S allegation, i.e., that he’s not a public figure, carries an audible ring of preposterousness! SANSON impeaches his own credibility — which is now irretrievably shot.

To provide deeper insight into these scandalous developments, Our I-Team met-up with legendary civil rights attorney, T. Matthew Phillips, Esq., at Jimmy John’s, a sandwich shop situated in Boca Park.

Our I-Team sought to speak with T. Matthew Phillips, Esq. because, as our readers know, Phillips is ALSO suing Jennifer Abrams and her crew for defamation.

We asked Mr. Phillips’ opinion, is Steve Sanson a public figure (or not)? “Duuuh!–of course he’s a public figure!” said Phillips.

Phillips continued, “But, seriously, it would appear Mr. Sanson makes false statements of material fact with specific intent to mislead — and I imagine the Abrams defendants will have no trouble impeaching Sanson’s credibility — with his own Facebook posts — in which Sanson makes public admissions that run directly contrary to the material allegations of his sworn affidavit.“

Our I-Team undertook a 0.29-second Google search — which revealed that perjury, in Nevada, is typically a cat-D felony, [see NRS § 199.120].

Our I-Team asked Mr. Phillips — what’s the best way to handle froggy litigants who play reindeer games in court?

“Hey, I’m NOT a Nevada lawyer! But any fool can see the Abrams defendants are wise to give this prestidigitator an ultimatum — immediately withdraw your glaring misstatements of material fact,” continued Phillips, who added, “and if he persists in playing reindeer games, a motion for sanctions and attorney’s fees would do quite nicely.”

Phillips explained the anti-SLAPP dynamic! “Look! It’s mathematically impossible for Sanson to win! C’mon! He already blew the statute of limitations! The only question is WHEN will Sanson tap-out! Asked another way, will Sanson tap-out BEFORE Jenny Abrams goes anti-SLAPP?”

Phillips departed the shallow waters: “Dig it. If Sanson taps-out first, then it’s a simple game over. However, if Jenny goes anti-SLAPP first, then Sanson CANNOT tap-out. Once my girl Jenny goes anti-SLAPP, it effectively precludes Sanson from dismissing his own action — and Sanson would thus remain on-the-hook for potential attorney’s fees PLUS the $10,000 bounty.”

Phillips then went deep: “Remember, this scenario played-out in the landmark case, Willick vs. Sanson! Along with Abrams, Willick also brought a STOOPID defamation lawsuit against Sanson. Then, Willick saw Abrams getting Shaq’d on anti-SLAPP, and Willick soon realized he too would have to pay attorney’s fees, plus a $10,000 bounty, and so, Willick tried to flee the battlefield by dismissing his own case, like the cowardly [expletive deleted] that he is! But Carson City wouldn’t let Willick dismiss!”

“That’s right! Once a defendant files an anti-SLAPP, the plaintiff may no longer dismiss his or her own case! In California, this principle is well-established. In Nevada, my boy Willick had to learn it the hard way!”

“How ironic! First, you got Willick ‘n Abrams, aka “Dumb ‘n Dumber,” who bring their cute, little TWINSIE lawsuits against Sanson, but then, they get banged on anti-SLAPP for attorney’s fees, plus the $10,000 bounty! But now, thanks to the ever-turning Wheel of Fate, the roles have been REVERSED! Now, you got Sanson facing attorney’s fees and FIVE bounties — at $10,000 apiece — for the FIVE Abrams defendants! So, yeah, it’s a RACE to the courthouse — will Sanson dismiss his [expletive deleted] lawsuit BEFORE Jenny brings down the anti-SLAPP thunder!“

Sources close to the investigation reveal the Abrams defendants have until Apr. 18, 2024 to file a responsive pleading.

Our I-Team checked the sporting odds at Caesar’s. Apparently, it’s a bullish bettor’s market. They’re giving 5:4 odds that the Abrams defendants will go full anti-SLAPP.

So, that’s our report from UFC APEX! And, yeah, we’re expecting a Freaky, Fast, Finish for Sanson and his bogus FLAWSUIT. 😀

EDITORIAL STAFF
ATOMIC COURT WATCHERS ~ “I” TEAM

Next Week’s Cliffhanger Episode

Will the ABRAMS defendants move to declare SANSON vexatious?!

Will they allow FALCONI to submit a media request to broadcast ABRAMS’ highly anticipated 12(b)(5) motion? And, if so, will FALCONI publicly ridicule SANSON in the opening 15-second bumper of the ONJ video?

“If fools did not go to market
cracked pots and false wares would not be sold.”
James M. McGill, Esq.

Atomic Court Watchers!

“Where REAL Change Happens!“

#Atomic City Come Alive!

1

“News Reporter’s Media Request Sparks Federal Lawsuit Against Clark County Judge.”

by T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.
California State Bar No. 165833
U.S. Supreme Court Bar No. 317048

Phillips vs. Henderson
On Mar. 27, 2024, T. Matthew Phillips filed a Sec. 1983 lawsuit against Judge Bill Henderson, Dept. R, and Clark County, alleging civil rights violations, [Phillips vs. Henderson, (2:24-cv-00594-DJA)]. Phillips’ lawsuit seeks injunctive relief.

Unconstitutional Policy
The lawsuit exposes an unconstitutional Eighth District policy — i.e., where fundamental rights are at stake, judges too often skip-over basic due process requirements — to wit, “notice” and “opportunity to be heard,” [XIV Amendment]. 

Issue Presented
When news reporters submit proposed media requests — must the court give the parties “notice” and “opportunity to be heard” — before the judge signs the proposed media order?  (Yes, of course!)

Governing Law
When news reporters submit media requests, due process requires the parties be given “notice” and “opportunity to be heard” — before the judge signs the proposed media order.  

14th Amdt – Liberty Clause
The 14th Amendment Liberty Clause guarantees the individual’s right to “life, liberty, and property.” And, this guarantee of “liberty” includes the right to privacy and the right to a fair trial, [see XIV Amendment].

14th Amdt – Due Process Clause
No court may consider a proposed order affecting one’s “life, liberty, and property” — including privacy and a fair trial — without first providing the individual with due process of law, [see XIV Amendment].

In a Nutshell
“Due process of law” means that, where fundamental rights are at stake, courts must provide the individual with *NOTICE* and *OPPORTUNITY to be HEARD* — before the judge considers any order that materially affects the individual’s fundamental rights, including their right to privacy and a fair trial, [see XIV Amendment].

Statement of Facts
On Mar. 9, 2024, a news reporter submitted a media request into Phillips’ family case — but Phillips was totally unaware of its existence because Dept. R failed to discharge their constitutional duty to notify the parties. 

“Shall Be Notified”
In addition to federal “notice” requirements at the 14th Amendment, the state also requires the parties “shall  be notified … of any such request by a news reporter,” [see SCR 230.1; (bold italics added)].

State and Federal Violations
Dept. R violates federal law, i.e., the 14th Amendment — for failure to give the parties “notice” and “opportunity to be heard” concerning a proposed order that materially affects the parties’ fundamental rights. In addition, Dept. R also violates state law, i.e., SCR 230.1 — for failure to notify the parties that a news reporter had submitted a media request in the first place, (“shall be notified“).

Particularized Findings
State law also creates a particularity requirement. When news reporters request media access, “[a] judge shall make particularized findings on the record,” [see SCR 230.2]. However, in the signed media order, (Mar. 13, 2024), Henderson made “check-the-box” findings — which do not qualify as “particularized” under SCR 230.2.

Check-the-Box Findings
On Mar. 13, 2024, Henderson signed a “fill-in-the-blanks” media order — prepared by a non-lawyer. This dubious document comes with “pre-fab” language that prompts judges to make findings — by checking a box; but again, Phillips argues that “check-the-box” findings are not sufficiently “particularized” for purposes of SCR 230.2.

Unauthorized Practice of Law (‘UPL’)
Phillips contends that the news reporter engages in the unauthorized practice of law — by preparing and submitting a proposed order — on behalf of another entity — a media corporation. (Sidebar: family court is stressful enough already — without the added headache of meddlesome, third-party interlopers secretly submitting documents to your judge — documents that affect your life!)

The Challenged Order
Below is the challenged media request and order (which, curiously, identifies only one party). The form was executed on two dates — Mar. 9, 2024, (news reporter signature), and Mar. 13, 2024, (judicial signature). The reader will note, the Register of Actions duly records the events of Mar. 13, 2024; however, the Register of Actions is SILENT on Mar. 9, 2024 — the day on which the surreptitious news reporter secretly submitted his “off-the-record” proposed order to Dept. R.

Negligently Drafted Media Order
Objectively speaking, the media form is defective per se — because it has no blank space for judges to add remarks. As the reader can plainly see, (supra), Henderson was forced to superimpose his remarks on top of the underlying order, (which makes for a confusing record on appeal).

Errors ‘n Omissions
To make matters worse, the media order contains more defects — it omits four of the “six factors” enumerated at SCR 230.2(a)–(f).  For reasons unknown, the sleight-of-hand news reporter created a proposed order — with only two of the required “six factors.”  (For goodness’ sake!–why not cut ‘n paste ALL six factors?!)

Recipe for Disaster
With only two of the “six factors” in the media request form, it’s a recipe for disaster. Why?–because it’s reasonably foreseeable that some judges will view the media form in a semi-colorable light and mistakenly conclude it’s legit. These judges will rely exclusively on the contents of the media form — never venturing beyond its four corners, and thus, never considering the other four factors at subsections (b), (c), (e) & (f) of SCR 230.2.

The Media Form Omits ‘Privacy’
In ruling on the media request in Phillips’ case, Henderson never considered the parties’ right to privacy, a blatant civil rights violation — although, arguably, this judicial faux pas, in some respects, may be attributable to the errant news reporter — who created a facially defective media form that omits the term privacy.

The Right of Privacy
Sure, the hapless news reporter may be a proximate cause of Henderson not having considered the parties’ privacy; however, Henderson, remains duty-bound to follow the Constitution, as well as black-letter law, which provides that, upon receipt of media requests, “the judge shall consider” the parties’ “right of privacy,” [see SCR 230.2, at sub. (b)].

Safety and Well-Being
State law also requires that “the judge shall consider … the safety and well-being of any party,” [see SCR 230.2, at sub. (c)]. But that didn’t happen in Phillips’ case. As the reader may guess, the media form omits the “safety” factor.

Star-Chamber Proceedings
The current Eighth District policy — of allowing news reporters to submit proposed orders — in total secrecy — and allowing judges to adjudicate proposed media orders — in total secrecy — with no “notice” to the parties — nor “opportunity to be heard” — is constitutionally intolerable.

The Very Word Secrecy
“The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society; and, we are, as a people, inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings,” [Pres. John F. Kennedy, address to the American Newspaper Publishers Association, (Apr. 27, 1961)].

~~ TMP.
Apr. 8, 2024

Know your rights! Tell others!

BE the CHANGE you want to see in the world!

#Atomic City Come Alive!

0

“SANSON vs. ABRAMS – DEUX!”

Dateline: Las Vegas, Nev., Mar. 29, 2024.

Hey, stewardess, is there a movie on this flight?” Seriously?

Buckle-up! It’s gonna be one helluva bumpy ride!

Friends! Romans! Fight Fans! Atomic Court Watchers I-Team continues its LIVE, ongoing coverage of the ultimate, no-holds-barred, mixed martial arts, grudge match at UFC APEX! Daniel Cormier is calling it the Defamation Case of the Century! — Sanson vs. Abrams — Deux! [Clark County No. A-23-884249-C].

Atomic Court Watchers I-Team has gone behind the scenes! — to bring you an exclusive sneak peak at the ruling!

We’re good like that.

Ladies ‘n gents, without further ado, our Atomic Court Watchers I-Team exclusively presents this exclusive presentation!

So, click on the link to download Sanson vs. Abrams — Deux!

Makes its own sauce when you add water! 🙂

SANSON vs. ABRAMS – DEUX!Download

Taken just moments after prevailing, attorneys James M. McGill and Kimberly A. Wexler celebrate their victory over Steve Sanson and Veterans in Politics at Eighth Judicial District Court, (July 19, 2024). [Photo courtesy of UTI]

“Perfection is the enemy of the perfectly adequate.”
James M. McGill, Esq.

😎

Atomic City Come Alive!

0

Parents Rights Class Action

Dateline: Los Angeles, Calif., Oct. 10, 2023
On Sept. 29, 2023, California civil rights attorney, T. Matthew Phillips, filed a “parental rights” class action lawsuit — in U.S. District Court, Los Angeles.

Parenting is a Constitutional Right
The lawsuit seeks to train California judges that parenting is a constitutional right. On Oct. 10, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, (see below).

D’SOUZA vs. GUERRERO, [2:23-cv-08230; (U.S.D.C. Central District)] Download

D’Souza vs. Guerrero
This federal lawsuit, D’Souza vs. Guerrero, alleges that California fails to train judges — first, that parenting is a fundamental right — and second, that the Constitution forbids physical custody orders that grant no actual parenting time — unless a parent is found “unfit” — i.e., with evidence of actual harm to a minor child.

Plaintiffs are ‘Fit’ Parents
Plaintiffs are “fit” parents — they’ve never been found “unfit.” Plaintiffs never committed: (i) child abuse, (ii) child neglect, (iii) abandonment, or (iv) endangerment. Plaintiffs never harmed their children. But still, the State effectively terminated Plaintiffs’ right to parent, which infringes upon fundamental rights that the 1st and 14th Amendments guarantee.

No ‘Actual Parenting Time’ for Plaintiffs
The lawsuit further argues that supervised visitation is not “parenting.” Where courts issue “supervised visitation” orders, (and “no-contact” orders), it leaves noncustodial parents with no actual parenting time — because they have no actual ability to exercise care, custody, and control of their children (which deprives 14th Amendment rights), and no actual ability to exercise private familial speech with their children (which deprives 1st Amendment rights).

Humanitarian Crisis
The lawsuit points-out that, compared to Plaintiffs, prison inmates have greater access to their kids.  However, there’s a basic human need to bring-up one’s children — it’s a basic necessity of life — like food or water — and yet, California judges daily deprive the People of this most basic human necessity. It’s a humanitarian crisis. 

Parent-less Children
The lawsuit estimates that, on each day the courts are open for business, approximately 100 California children lose a parent.  Exact numbers of parent-less children are unknown, but Phillips hopes to learn the true and correct numbers via the discovery process. 

Minimum Constitutional Guarantee
Plaintiffs contend they are entitled to prevail because California judicial policies grant unto the People fewer parental rights than the minimum constitutional guarantee. ~~TMP.

BIO: Attorney, T. Matthew Phillips, is a member of the California State Bar — Lic. No. 165833 — in good standing — for 32 consecutive years.  Phillips is also federally licensed — in U.S.D.C., Central District of Calif., U.S.D.C., Northern District of Calif., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as the United States Supreme Court.  Phillips is a graduate of San Fernando Valley College of Law, Woodland Hills, Calif. 

The lawsuit is brought in conjunction with KidsMatter,

Please Donate Today!

https://www.givesendgo.com/kidsmatter

Please visit our partners on Instagram:

https://www.instagram.com/parentsrightsclassaction/

MEDIA INQUIRIES

Robert Emert at 760-612-9328 robemert@msn.com

13

Nevada COA Defines “Sole Physical Custody!” Exclusive Interview with Melvin Grimes!

by T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.
California State Bar No. 165833
U.S. Supreme Court Bar No. 317048

Dateline, Carson City, Nev. — Aug. 1, 2023.

Last week, on July 27, 2023, Nevada Court of Appeals issued a published decision in the matter of Roe vs. Roe, [139 Nev., Adv. Op. 21; No. 84893–COA; (July 27, 2023)]. We here present the case with editorializations by civil rights attorney, T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.

“[A]n order for sole physical custody creates tension with a parent’s fundamental rights, Nevada public policy, and future modification rights.” — C.J. Michael P. Gibbons, Nevada Court of Appeals

Writing for the Court of Appeals, C.J. Michael P. Gibbons explains, “In this opinion, we … outline what a district court must consider when entering an order for sole physical custody,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (at p. 1–2); (bold italics added].

“In this opinion, we provide a definition of sole physical custody to ensure custodial orders are properly characterized.  We direct district courts when entering an order for sole physical custody to first find either that the noncustodial parent is unfit for the child to reside with, or to make specific findings and provide an adequate explanation as to the reason primary physical custody is not in the best interest of the child,” [Roe vs. Roe, 139 Nev., Adv. Op. 21; No. 84893–COA; (July 27, 2023), (at p. 3) (bold italics added)].

C.J. Gibbons continues, “Following either of these findings, the district court must consider the least restrictive parenting time arrangement possible to avoid constraining the parent-child relationship any more than is necessary to prevent potential harm cause by an unfit parent and meet the best interest of the child.  If the court enters a more restrictive parenting time arrangement than is otherwise available, it must explain how the greater restriction is in the child’s best interest,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 3)].

Constitutional enthusiasts statewide were quick to note C.J. Gibbons’ clear and unambiguous language: “The parent-children relationship is a fundamental liberty interest,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 15), citing, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923); (bold italics added)].

Mr. Chief Justice Gibbons writes, “[a] permanent change to parenting time affects a parent’s fundamental rights concerning the custody of their child,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (pp. 15–16), (bold italics added), citing, Gordon v. Geiger, 133 Nev. at 546, 402 P.3d at 674, (2017)].  “Even parents deemed highly emotionally dysregulated retain their fundamental rights,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 16)]. 

Most significantly, C.J. Gibbons identifies three distinctive types of physical custody: “Nevada district courts enter one of three parenting time arrangements in a custodial order—joint, primary, or sole physical custody,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 16); (bold italics added].

What is sole physical custody? “[W]hen a district court enters an order that limits parenting time to restrictive supervised parenting time, virtual contact, phone calls, letters, texts, [etc.], it has entered an order for sole physical custody,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (pp. 18–19); (bold italics added)].   

“Because the noncustodial parent’s care, custody, and control of their child is so severely restricted, sole physical custody orders implicate a parent’s fundamental rights . . . [C]hild custody decisions implicate due process rights because parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of their children,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (p. 19); (bold italics added)].

The Chief Justice shows compassion for constitutional procedure: “the severe restriction on the noncustodial parent’s care, custody, and control of their child requires additional findings and procedure,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 19); (bold italics added].  

The Chief Justice articulates public policy: “the public policy of Nevada is to preserve and strengthen family life,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 19)]. “To protect a noncustodial parent’s rights, judicial discretion is tempered by this state’s policy of supporting ‘frequent associations and a continuing relationship’ between parent and child after the parents’ relationship which each other has ended,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 19), citing NRS § 125.001(1)].

C.J. Gibbons sets the *abuse-of-discretion* standard: “a district court risks abusing its discretion when it orders sole physical custody without sufficient cause or otherwise unnecessarily restricts and threatens the parent-child relationship,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (pp. 19–20)].

The Chief Justice suggests that sole physical custody must be linked to a finding of “unfitness,” (i.e., based on clear and convincing evidence of (i) child abuse, (ii) neglect, (iii) endangerment, or (iv) abandonment). The Chief Justice writes, “[t]o avoid unnecessary restrictions on parental rights, a district court must only enter an order for sole physical custody if it first finds either that the noncustodial parent is unfit for the child to reside with, or if it makes specific findings and provides an adequate explanation as to the reasons why primary physical custody is not in the best interests of the child.” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (pp. 20–21); (bold italics added)].

The Chief Justice further suggests strict scrutiny analysis: “After making either of these findings supporting sole physical custody, the district court must then order the least restrictive parenting time arrangement possible that is within the child’s best interests,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 21; (bold italics added)].   

“When entering its custodial order, if a less restrictive parenting time arrangement is available, or proposed but rejected, the district court must provide an explanation as to how the best interest of the child is served by the greater restriction,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (p. 21)].

Ultimately, C.J. Gibbons finds that family court judge, Dawn Throne, committed legal error by: (1) failing to consider a less restrictive parenting time arrangement; (2) failing to adequately explain why the greater restriction was necessary; (3) failing to make findings how true primary physical custody was not in [the minor child’s] best interest; and (4) implementing an almost unachievable plan with no ending, review, or even status check date, and accordingly has undermined Nevada’s public policy, issued an order inconsistent with Nevada jurisprudence, and violated [the mother’s] parental rights,”  [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 24); (bold italics added)]. 

The Chief Justice finds abuse of discretion. “As a result, we conclude that [Dawn Throne] abused [her] discretion when [she] effectively awarded [] sole physical custody of the minor child,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (p. 24); (bold italics added)].  The COA then reverses Thorne. “Thus, we reverse the parenting time allocation and direct the district court, on remand, to enter a parenting time order consistent with Nevada jurisprudence and this opinion,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (p. 24); (bold italics added)].

In conclusion, C.J. Gibbons writes, “Sole physical custody is a custodial arrangement where the child resides with only one parent and the noncustodial parent’s parenting time is restricted to no significant in-person parenting time,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (p. 36)].  

Most remarkable, the Chief Justice writes, “[a] district court entering an order for sole physical custody creates tension with a parent’s fundamental rights, Nevada public policy, and future modification rights,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (p. 36); (bold italics added)]. But what does it mean — to create tension — with a fundamental right? Absent findings of unfitness, do district judges have subject-matter jurisdiction, (“authority”), to create tension in the parent-child relationship? (At what point does judicial tension rise to the level of substantial interference?– i.e., when does the tension become constitutionally intolerable?)

The Chief Justice continues, “a district court must first find that either the noncustodial parent is unfit for the child to reside with, or it must make specific findings and provide an adequate explanation as to the reasons why primary physical custody is not in the best interest of the child,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (p. 36); (bold italics added)].

The Chief Justice again suggests strict scrutiny analysis. “Afterwards, the district court must enter the least restrictive parenting time arrangement possible consistent with a child’s best interest,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (pp. 36–37); (bold italics added)].

“Should it enter a more restrictive order, it must explain how the greater restriction is in the child’s best interest.  Moreover, it must retain its decision-making authority over future custodial modifications and parent time allocations, as well as enter order with sufficient specificity to allow enforcement.  These steps are to ensure that when a district court enters an order for sole physical custody, it does so equitably and in accordance with Nevada’s statutes and jurisprudence, thereby preserving the noncustodial parent’s fundamental rights to the greatest degree possible,” [Roe vs. Roe, 139 Nev., Adv. Op. 21; No. 84893–COA; (July 27, 2023), (at p. 37); (bold italics added)].

~~TMP. (Aug. 1, 2023)

EDITOR’S NOTE

Our Atomic I-Team noted, at page 36 of the Roe decision, it states, “[a]n order for sole physical custody creates tension with a parent’s fundamental rights.” Okay, stop right there!

Note the awkward, euphemistic language, “creates tension.” Well, that’s one way to say it! Another way to say it might be that the judge, Dawn Throne, violated mom’s fundamental right to parent — which the 14th Amendment guarantees!

MELVIN GRIMES — Man or Mythology?

Melvin Grimes distinguishes himself from the run-of-the-mill attorneys who infest Clark County family court. Melvin is a breed apart!

But what makes Melvin so special? A unique blend of courage, gumption, and derring-do! Melvin boldly argues that parenting is a constitutional right — *IN* Clark County family court, (a barren, godless wasteland where federally protected civil rights go to quietly suffocate and die…).

Hear ye, hear ye! We salute the Bravehearts — such as Mel Grimes — i.e., attorneys who actually argue the Constitution in family court!

A constitutional scholar and man-about-town, Melvin knows and understands that custodial orders may not restrict or limit one’s fundamental “right to parent” absent a showing of “unfitness” — based on clear and convincing evidence of: (i) child abuse, (ii) child neglect, (iii) child endangerment, or (iv) child abandonment.

Melvin *Primary Custody* Grimes– EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW!

It was a once-in-a-lifetime interview. Our Atomic I-Team met-up with Melvin *Primary Custody* Grimes — at a Dotty’s on Boulder Hwy. Grimes wasted no time. “Listen up,” said Grimes. “New rule!–family court judges must order the least restrictive parenting time arrangement possible!”

A trailblazing maverick, Grimes urged our I-Team members and Dotty’s patrons, “You should see recent published decisions and see what real lawyering looks like. Let me help you … go to Nevada Supreme Court website and search the Nevada advanced opinions for a brand new case about custody. Then read the briefs… that is what a real lawyer can do for people!”

Every living soul at Dotty’s was awestruck. Weak-kneed ladies helplessly swooned. Stout-hearted men openly wept.

Grimes explained that, “Under the Troxel presumption, fit parents are presumed to be acting in the best interests of their children.” Grimes continued, “When it comes to fit parents, no family court judge may infringe upon — or otherwise create tension with — the fundamental right to parent — which is a liberty interest that the 14th Amendment guarantees unto We The People!”

Our Atomic I-Team asked Grimes what Roe means for Clark County family court. “C’mon! It’s a game-changer!” “From now on,” Grimes explained, “custody orders must be narrowly tailored — with the least restrictive custody arrangement possible.” Grimes added, “Furthermore, the trial judge must devise a game plan or road map to reinstate those custodial rights that the outlier parent lost — along with periodic status checks.”

On that sultry, summer afternoon at Dotty’s, all eyes and ears were trained on Melvin Grimes, who worked the crowd, liberally dispensing business cards and warmly shaking hands with locals!

So, is Grimes now a heavy hitter? We put that question to civil rights attorney, T. Matthew Phillips. “Are you effin kidding me?!” exclaimed Phillips. “Melvin is a letter-high fastball over the centerfield wall — home run, y’all!”

Phillips added, “In the vast majority of divorce cases, we see two fit parents standing before the court. In such instances, the Equal Protection Clause demands that both parents share equal and undivided physical custody, fifty-fifty! Why?—because both parents are similarly situated in the eyes of the law — because Torxel’s fitness presumption applies to both parents equally.”

JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY—FOR ALL “FIT” PARENTS!

Because the best interests of the children
demand equal access to two loving parents.

#WarIsOverIfYouWantIt

#StopTheHolocaust

SHOUT-OUT to Melvin *Primary Custody* Grimes!

The lawyer who successfully argued Roe vs. Roe! 🙂

READ the Roe vs. Roe DECISION, CLICK BELOW —>>

roe-vs.-roe-coa-84893-july-27-2023Download

Know your rights!

Tell others!

# A t o m i c C i t y C o m e A l i v e

0

“Government Overreach Gone Wild!”

New California Bills Impact Parental Rights

DATELINE: Sacramento, Calif., June 14, 2023 — Yesterday, the California Senate passed Assembly Bill No. 957, which provides that parents may lose custody of their children — and ultimately go to jail — if they refuse to “affirm” their child’s transgender status.

And now, Sacramento insiders today revealed that California Governor, Gavin Newsome, will soon sign Senate Bill No. 182 — which requires Child Protective Services, (“CPS”), to perform “in-home inspections” and “custody evaluations” prior to moms being allowed to leave hospitals with newborns.

Proponents hail the bill as a victory for neonatal rights. However, opponents see it as another Newsom assault on constitutional rights.

In support, Dr. Kaye Shozeh, California Dept. of Soc. Svcs., stated, “The health and safety of your child is our top priority.”

According to family law experts, the State’s paramount concern is the child’s “best interests.”

Senior litigation attorney, Wilfrid Robarts, Esq., San Bernardino County Fathers’ Rights Legal Group, explained, “Yes, the State has authority to enter your home — to ensure the safety of your kids.”

In opposition, California civil rights attorney, T. Matthew Phillips, Esq., spouted, “No! — this is one of the most overreaching governmental overreaches in the history of governmental overreach!“

Attorney Phillips added, “Seriously, am I the only one who watched AMC Breaking Bad? — Remember Jesse Pinkman in the R.V.?” — “This is my own private domicile — and I will not be harassed …. B-word!“

State Senator, Richard Pan — who last week announced his bid for Mayor of Sacramento — supports Rainbow Amendments to the Constitution — to ensure the safety of all t-children.

On a related note, an unnamed Sacramento insider described the Constitution as a “stale-dated document written by toxic, white males who owned slaves and wouldn’t even let women vote.”

Our I-Team spoke with New Mexico criminal rights attorney, Saul Goodman, Esq., who believes the bill is unconstitutional. “C’mon! — the Fourth Amendment prohibits CPS from entering your home — unless they have a search warrant supported by probable cause! — Now, what’s for lunch, huh?”

Sources close to the investigation indicate the proposed bill could be on Newsom’s desk early next week. ~~ Maggie Corbin (Contributing Editor)

* * *

Yes, you’ve been hoaxed. 🙂

There is, of course, no S.B. 182 — this is just a glimpse into the dark future that lay ahead for American parents.

If you believe the gov’t has no authority to impose in-home inspections — at the time of birth — then by what authority does the gov’t impose such inspections — at the time of divorce?

A.B. 957, on the other hand, is very real indeed.

The cold, hard truth about A.B. 957 is this — if parents refuse to affirm that their t-children should be castrated (by puberty blockers), then those parents will lose custody and go to jail — and the State will then castrate their children — free from parental interference.

Know your rights!

Tell others!

#AtomicCourtWatchers

Produced and Directed by TMP’s Midnight Minions
in association with Chapter Eleven Productions,
Fly-By-Night Management Services, and
Neurotica Entertainment Group

Copyright 2023 – by T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.

“Freedom means nothing
if you can’t keep the government away from your children.”
~ T. Matthew Phillips, Esq. ~

0

Up ↑